Non-neutral theory of biodiversity

We present a non-neutral stochastic model for the dynamics taking place in a meta-community ecosystems in presence of migration. The model provides a framework for describing the emergence of multiple ecological scenarios and behaves in two extreme limits either as the unified neutral theory of biodiversity or as the Bak-Sneppen model. Interestingly, the model shows a condensation phase transition where one species becomes the dominant one, the diversity in the ecosystems is strongly reduced and the ecosystem is non-stationary. This phase transition extend the principle of competitive exclusion to open ecosystems and might be relevant for the study of the impact of invasive species in native ecologies.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figur

Neutral theory of chemical reaction networks

To what extent do the characteristic features of a chemical reaction network reflect its purpose and function? In general, one argues that correlations between specific features and specific functions are key to understanding a complex structure. However, specific features may sometimes be neutral and uncorrelated with any system-specific purpose, function or causal chain. Such neutral features are caused by chance and randomness. Here we compare two classes of chemical networks: one that has been subjected to biological evolution (the chemical reaction network of metabolism in living cells) and one that has not (the atmospheric planetary chemical reaction networks). Their degree distributions are shown to share the very same neutral system-independent features. The shape of the broad distributions is to a large extent controlled by a single parameter, the network size. From this perspective, there is little difference between atmospheric and metabolic networks; they are just different sizes of the same random assembling network. In other words, the shape of the degree distribution is a neutral characteristic feature and has no functional or evolutionary implications in itself; it is not a matter of life and death.Comment: 13 pages, 8 figure

Neutral theory and scale-free neural dynamics

Avalanches of electrochemical activity in brain networks have been empirically reported to obey scale-invariant behavior --characterized by power-law distributions up to some upper cut-off-- both in vitro and in vivo. Elucidating whether such scaling laws stem from the underlying neural dynamics operating at the edge of a phase transition is a fascinating possibility, as systems poised at criticality have been argued to exhibit a number of important functional advantages. Here we employ a well-known model for neural dynamics with synaptic plasticity, to elucidate an alternative scenario in which neuronal avalanches can coexist, overlapping in time, but still remaining scale-free. Remarkably their scale-invariance does not stem from underlying criticality nor self-organization at the edge of a continuous phase transition. Instead, it emerges from the fact that perturbations to the system exhibit a neutral drift --guided by demographic fluctuations-- with respect to endogenous spontaneous activity. Such a neutral dynamics --similar to the one in neutral theories of population genetics-- implies marginal propagation of activity, characterized by power-law distributed causal avalanches. Importantly, our results underline the importance of considering causal information --on which neuron triggers the firing of which-- to properly estimate the statistics of avalanches of neural activity. We discuss the implications of these findings both in modeling and to elucidate experimental observations, as well as its possible consequences for actual neural dynamics and information processing in actual neural networks.Comment: Main text: 8 pages, 3 figures. Supplementary information: 5 pages, 4 figure

Protracted speciation revitalizes the neutral theory of biodiversity.

Understanding the maintenance and origin of biodiversity is a formidable task, yet many ubiquitous ecological patterns are predicted by a surprisingly simple and widely studied neutral model that ignores functional differences between species. However, this model assumes that new species arise instantaneously as singletons and consequently makes unrealistic predictions about species lifetimes, speciation rates and number of rare species. Here, we resolve these anomalies - without compromising any of the original models existing achievements and retaining computational and analytical tractability - by modelling speciation as a gradual, protracted, process rather than an instantaneous event. Our model also makes new predictions about the diversity of incipient species and rare species in the metacommunity. We show that it is both necessary and straightforward to incorporate protracted speciation in future studies of neutral models, and argue that non-neutral models should also model speciation as a gradual process rather than an instantaneous one

Neutral Theory and Relative Species Abundance in Ecology

The theory of island biogeography[1] asserts that an island or a local community approaches an equilibrium species richness as a result of the interplay between the immigration of species from the much larger metacommunity source area and local extinction of species on the island (local community). Hubbell[2] generalized this neutral theory to explore the expected steady-state distribution of relative species abundance (RSA) in the local community under restricted immigration. Here we present a theoretical framework for the unified neutral theory of biodiversity[2] and an analytical solution for the distribution of the RSA both in the metacommunity (Fisher's logseries) and in the local community, where there are fewer rare species. Rare species are more extinction-prone, and once they go locally extinct, they take longer to re-immigrate than do common species. Contrary to recent assertions[3], we show that the analytical solution provides a better fit, with fewer free parameters, to the RSA distribution of tree species on Barro Colorado Island (BCI)[4] than the lognormal distribution[5,6].Comment: 19 pages, 1 figur

Neutral Theory, Biased World

The ecologist today finds scarce ground safe from controversy. Decisions must be made about what combination of data, goals, methods, and theories offers them the foundations and tools they need to construct and defend their research. When push comes to shove, ecologists often turn to philosophy to justify why it is their approach that is scientific. Karl Popper’s image of science as bold conjectures and heroic refutations is routinely enlisted to justify testing hypotheses over merely confirming them. One of the most controversial theories in contemporary science is the Neutral Theory of Ecology. Its chief developer and proponent, Stephen Hubbell, presents the neutral theory as a bold conjecture that has so far escaped refutation. Critics of the neutral theory claim that it already stands refuted, despite what the dogmatic neutralists say. We see the controversy through a Popperian lens. But Popper’s is an impoverished philosophy of science that distorts contemporary ecology. The controversy surrounding the neutral theory actually rests on a methodological fault. There is a strong but messy historical link between the concepts of being neutral and being null in biology, and Hubbell perpetuates this when he claims that the neutral theory is supplies the appropriate null for testing alternative theories. What method is being followed here? There are three contenders: Null hypothesis testing tests for whether a there is a pattern to be explained. Null modeling tests for whether a process is causally relevant to a pattern. Baseline modeling apportions relative responsibility to multiple processes each relevant to a pattern. Whether the neutral theory supplies an appropriate “null” depends upon whether null hypothesis, null modeling, or baseline model is intended. These methods prescribe distinct inference patterns. If they are null hypothesis testing or null modeling, the neutralists’s reasoning is invalid. If they are baseline modeling, the justification of a crucial assumption remains opaque. Either way, the neutral-null connection is being exploited rhetorically to privilege the neutral theory over its rivals. Clarifying the reasoning immunizes us against the rhetoric and foregrounds the underlying virtues of the neutralist approach to ecology. The Popperian lens distorts theoretical development as dogmatism. Lakatos’s view of science as the development of research programmes clarifies the epistemology of the neutral theory. Focusing philosophical attention on the neutralist research programme illuminates (1) the synchronic uses of the neutral theory to make predictions and give descriptions and explanations; (2) its diachronic development in response to theoretical innovation and confrontation with data; (3) its complex relationships to alternative theories. For example, baseline modeling is now seen to be its primary explanatory heuristic. The justification for baseline modeling with the neutral theory, previously hidden from view, is seen in the logic of in the neutralist research programme

Are Intra-Household Allocations Policy Neutral? Theory and Empirical Evidence

We develop a collective household model with spousal matching in which there exists marital gains to assortative matching and marriage quality for each couple is revealed ex post. Changes in alimony laws are shown to affect existing couples and couples-to-be differently. For existing couples, legislative changes that favor (wo)men benefit them especially if the marriage match quality is low, while, for couples not yet formed, they generate offsetting intra-household transfers and lower intra-marital allocations for the spouses who are the intended beneficiary. We then estimate the effect of granting alimony rights to cohabiting couples in Canada using a triple-difference framework since each province extended these rights in different years and requiring different cohabitation length. We find that obtaining the right to petition for alimony led women to lower their labor force participation. These results, however, do not hold – and, in some cases, are reversed – for newly formed cohabiting couples.intra-household allocations, matching, cohabitation, alimony laws